Articles Standards: Mathematics and Science
2 Compared To Technological Literacy
The Journal of Technology Studies
By Franzie L. Loepp
Standards for Technological Literacy:
Content for the Study of Technology was
released in April 2000 by the International
Technology Education Association (ITEA,
2000). This was the first attempt by the ITEA to
set forth comprehensive specifications regarding
what students should know and be able to do
within each of four grade bands from kinder-
garten through 12th grade. The purpose of this
article is to compare the technological literacy
standards with those that have been developed
for preK2 in mathematics (National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM], 2000) and
K12 in science (National Research Council
[NRC], 1996).
Developmental Process
In some ways the development of standards
in the three disciplines was similar. The main
reason is that other disciplines appear to have
used components of the developmental process
used by the NCTM. All three disciplines relied
heavily on working groups to develop draft stan-
dards. They sought input from teachers, teacher
educators, and professionals in their respective
disciplines. Drafts of the documents were
reviewed by large numbers of practitioners, and
their input was used to make revisions (Dugger,
2001). By its very nature the developmental
process became somewhat political. For exam-
ple, Dr. John Dossey1 said that while the major-
ity of the leaders in the discipline favored a
stronger emphasis on content in statistics, prob-
ability, and discrete mathematics, others feared
inclusion of new content would detract from
traditional mathematics. In the development of
science standards, leaders in the subdisciplines
of biology, chemistry, physics, and geology were
not convinced that a single set of standards
could possibly give their area of study adequate
coverage.2 In technology, persons from the dis-
cipline tended to want a long list (200+) of
rather specific standards, whereas the advisory
committee, made up of professionals from other
disciplines, particularly science and engineering,
strongly advised a shorter, more manageable
number.3 Nevertheless, each disciplines profes-
sional organization did publish a set of stan-
dards. Short descriptions of the processes used
to develop content standards are provided below.
Technology Education
The development of the standards for tech-
nological literacy actually began in 1994 when
the Technology for All Americans Project
(TfAAP) funded by the National Science
Foundation and NASA began to develop a
Rationale and Structure for the Study of
Technology (TfAAP, 1996). Based on this
document, additional funding was received to
write standards for technology education. A
standards team made up of three groups (one
for grades K2 and 35; one for 68; and one
for 912) was formed to write content standards.
The standards team was mostly made up of tech-
nology education teachers plus a few administra-
tors and teacher educators. These groups met
periodically from 1996 through 1999, writing six
drafts of the standards. The TfAAP staff refined
each draft and conducted many regional reviews
along with electronic reviews. A special advisory
group consisting of leaders in technology educa-
tion, engineering, mathematics, and science
reviewed draft documents and provided valuable
feedback. The NRCs standards review commit-
tee, the National Academy of Engineering spe-
cial review committee, a National Academy of
Engineering focus group, The National
Commission for Technology for Education and
elementary, middle, and high school field test
sites, and hundreds of technology education
teachers reviewed drafts of the document. A pro-
fessional writer was hired to write the finished
document that was published. See Table 1 for a
listing of the Standards for Technological
Literacy (ITEA, 2000). The leaders of the
TfAAP are to be commended for managing this
complex process (ITEA, 2000).
Mathematics
In 1986, the board of directors of the
NCTM established the commission on standards
Table 1. Standards for Technological Literacy
Nature of Technology
1. The characteristics and scope of technology
2. The core concepts of technology
3. The relationships among technologies and the
connections between technology and other fields.
Technology and Society
4. The cultural, social, economic, and political
effects of technology
5. The effects of technology on the environment
6. The role of society in the development and
use of technology
7. The influence of technology on history
Design
8. The attributes of design
9. Engineering design
for school mathematics to improve the quality
of school mathematics. As a result of the com-
missions efforts, standards were drafted during
the summer of 1987 and revised during the
summer of 1988. Four working groups appoint-
ed by the president of NCTM outlined the draft
documents. Each group represented mathemat-
ics educators, including classroom teachers,
supervisors, educational researchers, teacher
educators, and university mathematicians. All
work was authorized and reviewed by the
commission. In 1989 the Curriculum and
Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics
was published and widely disseminated
(NCTM, 1989).
Three years after the standards were
published, leaders in NCTM noted that many in
their profession thought their identification of
content in mathematics was too progressive so
they appointed the commission of the future of
the standards in 1995 to monitor and review the
1989 standards. By spring 1997, a Standards
2000 writing group and a Standards 2000 elec-
tronic format group were appointed, each
consisting of teachers, teacher educators,
administrators, researchers, and mathemati-
cians. Their primary work was carried out in
sessions during the summers of 1997 through
1999. The background information for these
sessions was obtained or supported by such
groups as Eisenhower National Clearinghouse,
the NRC, the National Science Foundation, and
NCTMs research advisory committee. Over
the course of the development of Standards
2000, 14 association review groups were
3
10.The role of trouble-shooting, research and develop-
The Journal of Technology Studies
ment, invention and innovation, and experimentation
and problem solving
Abilities for a Technological World
11. Apply the design process
12. Use and maintain technological products and systems
The Designed World
14. Medical technologies
15. Agricultural and related bio-technologies
16. Energy and power technologies
17. Information and communication technologies
18. Transportation technologies
19. Manufacturing technologies
20. Construction technologies
Source: ITEA, 2000, pp. 211-214.
formed to provide sustained advice and infor-
mation regarding K12 mathematics consistent
with their organizations perspective. In
October 1998, a draft version of the standards
was available in print and electronic forms for
review. Twenty-five people from a wide range
of backgrounds were commissioned to carefully
review the draft from their individual perspec-
tive. Comprehensive reviews were conducted by
more than 650 individuals and more than 70
groups. Nearly 30,000 copies of the draft were
provided to interested persons, and thousands
accessed the electronic copy. These data were
synthesized and provided to a writing group
which produced the final document that was
disseminated as Principles and Standards for
School Mathematics in April 2000 (NCTM,
2000). See Table 2 for a listing of the content
standards for mathematics.
Science
The success of standards in mathematics as
well as Project 2061, sponsored by the
American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS, 1993), caused leaders in
science education to initiate the development of
national science education standards. The
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA)
board requested the NRC to coordinate this
important task. The U.S. Department of
Education and the National Science Foundation
provided major funding for this effort. An
oversight group, National Committee on
Science Education Standards and Assessment
(NCSESA), was established. A chairperson was
selected and a chairs advisory committee was
 Table 2. Mathematics Standards
4 1. Number and operations
2. Algebra
The Journal of Technology Studies
3. Geometry
4. Measurement
5. Data analysis and probability
6. Problem-solving
7. Reasoning and proof
8. Communication
9. Connections
10. Representation
Source: NCTM, 2000, pp. ixxiii.
formed with representation from at least eight
professional organizations. This group helped to
identify and recruit staff and volunteers for the
committees and three working groups (content,
teaching, and assessment). Over an 18-month
period, input on standards was received from a
large number of teachers, scientists, science
educators, and other interested parties. Many
presentations were made to foster discussion on
standards within the discipline. Then a predraft
of science content, teaching, professional devel-
opment, program, and system standards were
written and critiqued by selected focus groups.
The suggestions received were collated and ana-
lyzed, revisions were made, and a document was
prepared for public release and review.
Approximately 18,000 individuals and 250
groups reviewed this edition. The comments
received were again collated, analyzed, and used
to prepare the final publication of the National
Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996).
Table 3 includes the science content standards.
Cognitive and
Process Standards in T/M/S
In comparing the technology/
mathematics/science (T/M/S) content standards, it
is interesting to note that science has the fewest
with 8, mathematics has 10, and technology has
20. All three disciplines include within their desig-
nation of content standards standards that are
clearly process oriented. Mathematics has the most
process-oriented standards with 5; technology, 3;
and science, 1+. The process standards in mathe-
matics are problem solving, reasoning and proof,
communication, connections, and representation;
in technology they are apply the design process,
use and maintain products and systems, and assess
the impact of products and systems; and in science
Table 3. Science Standards
1. Unifying concepts and processes
2. Science as inquiry
3. Physical science
4. Life science
5. Earth and space science
6. Science and technology
7. Science in personal and social perspectives
8. History and nature science
Source: NRC, 1996, pp. 1315.
the primary process standard is science as inquiry,
but science and technology has a process element
as well. Of special interest is the fact that a disci-
pline such as technology education that has tradi-
tionally been highly process oriented only devel-
oped three process standards. It can be argued that
if these three processes are used in all seven con-
texts presented in The Designed World section,
they actually will have high priority in the design
of curricula.
Table 4 also shows the number of second-
level statements (technology refers to them as
benchmarks) in each set of standards, the grade
bands in each set, the date the standards were
issued, and the Web site where more informa-
tion can be obtained. With several mouse clicks
one can access the entire standards documents
in mathematics and science. This makes accessi-
bility quick and affordable.
Source
Each of the disciplines has strategies or
standards that are designed to complement or
help implement their standards. Along with con-
tent standards, science has developed teaching,
professional development, assessment, program,
and system standards. Mathematics has princi-
ples within their standards document to set
forth the basic precepts that are fundamental to a
high-quality mathematics program. The TfAAP
has plans to develop assessment, program, and
professional development standards by 2003. All
three disciplines have implementation workshops
or institutes to help teachers in the field learn
to use the standards. Table 5 indicates topics
included in the mathematics and science stan-
dards. Similar topics are under development for
the technological literacy standards.
Table 4. Comparison of T/M/S Content Standards

Area # of Stds Second Level Grade Bands Date Issued Website 5

(9-12) Statements

The Journal of Technology Studies

TECH 17 cognitive 51 cognitive K-2 2000 www.iteawww.org
3 process 15 process 3-5
6-8
9-12
MATH 5 cognitive 71 cognitive PreK-2 1989/2000 www.nctm.org
5 process 18 process 3-5
6-8
9-12
SCIENCE 7 cognitive 27 cognitive K-4 1995 www.nas.org
1 process 2 process 5-8
9-12

Comparison of Similar Standards the standards6; some teacher education pro-

Each of the disciplines advocates a particu-
lar way to solve problems. In technology this is
called design, in mathematics it is problem solv-
ing, and in science it is called inquiry. Science
also includes design as a part of the science and
technology standard. Table 6 illustrates these
specific problem-solving strategies. Notice the
overlap between the disciplinesparticularly
between technology and science. Also note the
different way each discipline uses the word con-
nections in Table 6.
The Impact of Standards on Technology,
Mathematics, and Science Education
The impact of the standards for technologi-
cal literacy is treated separately because there
are unique issues. There are a number of posi-
tive developments. Support has been received
from the engineering community (Gorham,
2002; Wulf, 2000); program standards (Martin,
2002) and assessment standards (Custer, 2001)
are on schedule to be completed in 2003
(Dugger, 2001); the NSF has continued to fund
the development of curricula based on standards
(ITEA, 2002); some states are revising their
standards (Mino, Kane, & Novak, 2001;
Newberry, 2001); publishing companies are
scrambling to produce new textbooks; work-
shops are being conducted on how to implement
grams are changing to be more in alignment
with the standards7; and new standards-based
curricula are being developed by the discipline
as well as the Center to Advance the Teaching of
Technology & Science (CATTS), which is
sponsored by the ITEA. However, many
questions such as the following remain to be
answered: Will technology education become a
regular offering in the general education of all
K12 students? Will the human resources
(teachers, administrators, teacher educators,
etc.) be available to respond to the need for
increased involvement in schools? Will technol-
ogy education become more closely aligned
with academic rather than vocational subjects?
The NCTM (not the federal government)
identified the need for a common set of
expectations so that states would have a guide to
follow as they provided direction in preK12
mathematics. Leaders in NCTM worked hard to
develop a document that would be comprehen-
sive and usable by the organizations constituents.
These leaders were actually surprised at the
impact their first set of standards had.8 Because
of their success, other disciplines followed suit.
Let us look at some of the ways mathematics and
science standards have influenced education.
1. Nearly all states have used the curriculum

Table 5. Work Completed Beyond Standards

Technology Mathematics Science

To be developed (2003) Principles Teaching standards
Equity Prof. dev. standards
Assessment standards
Program standards Curriculum Assessment standards
Prof. dev. standards Teaching Program standards
Learning System standards
 and evaluation standards for school math- National Council for the Accreditation
6 ematics (NCTM, 1989) and national sci- of Teacher Education (NCATE) stan-
ence education standards (NRC, 1996) dards for accreditation are also congru-
The Journal of Technology Studies

when developing their own goals or ent with these standards.

frameworks for math and science for their
state. One notable exception is in
California where the science standards are
more knowledge than process oriented.
2. Significant funding (National Science
Foundation, Eisenhower, U. S.
Department of Education, Science
Literacy, etc.) for the development of
mathematics and science curricula as
well as for professional development has
focused on the implementation of
mathematics and science standards.
3. Nearly all textbooks in mathematics and
science claim to be standards-based.
4. Nearly all teacher education programs
have changed to be in alignment with
the standards. Discipline-specific
5. Manufacturers and vendors have
designed, packaged, and marketed stan-
dards-based materials to support teach-
ing and learning in math and science.
6. State and national leaders use the
standards to lobby for more resources.
7. The state and national tests now purport
to be based on mathematics and science
standards. Now that there is common
understanding as to what students
should know and be able to do, the
development and use of standardized
tests has become more prevalent.
8. Both sets of standards advocate a new
kind of pedagogyone that is based on
research in the areas of teaching and
learning, cognitive science, and the func-
tion of the brain. This new pedagogy is

Table 6. Comparison of Similar Standards (9-12 BAND)

Technology Mathematics Science

Apply the design process
Clearly identify design problem
Identify criteria and constraints
Refine the design
Evaluate the design
Develop a product or system
Reevaluate solution
Problem solving
Build new mathematical knowledge
Solve problems that arise in
mathematics and in other contexts
Apply and adapt a variety of appro-
priate strategies to solve problems
Monitor and reflect on the process of
mathematical problem-solving
Science as inquiry
Identify questions and concepts that
guide scientific investigations
Design and conduct scientific investi-
gations
Use technology and mathematics to
improve investigations and
communications
Formulate and revise scientific expla-
nations and models using logic and
evidence
Recognize and analyze alternative
explanations and models
Communicate and defend a
scientific argument

Science and technology

Define a problem or design an oppor-
tunity
Propose designs and choose between
alternative solutions
Implement a proposed solution
Evaluate the solution and its
consequences
Communicate the problem, process,
and solutions

The relationships among Connections Science in personal and social

technologies and the connections
between technology and other fields
Technology transfer
Innovation and invention
Knowledge protection and patents
Technological knowledge and
advances of science and mathematics
and vise-versa (ITEA, 2000)
Recognize and use connections
among mathematical ideas
Understand how mathematical ideas
interconnect and build on one another
to produce a coherent whole
Recognize and apply mathematics in
contexts outside of mathematics
(NCTM, 2000)
perspectives
Personal and community health
Population growth
Natural resources
Environmental quality
Natural and human induced hazards
Science and technology in local,
national, and global challenges
(NRC, 1996)
 referred to as constructivism and
places emphasis on allowing students to
use prior knowledge to new understand-
ings through hands-on, authentic experi-
ences. A careful review of Tables 7 and 8
will help the reader understand the shift
in pedagogy from one that is knowledge-
based (memorization) to one that
engages students in science and mathe-
matics for the purpose of building under-
standing.
9. The new pedagogy has made it
necessary for teachers and administra-
tors to engage in extensive
professional development activities.
10.The new pedagogy has also made it
necessary to make substantial improve-
ments in facilities.
Personal Experience with Standards
As the director of the integrated mathe-
matics, science, and technology middle school
curriculum development project for the past 10
years, this author has had extensive experience
in the use of T/M/S standards. Clearly, stan-
dards are not curriculum, but they are extreme-
ly useful for those who develop curriculum
because (a) they provide the scope of content
to be included, (b) they give an indication as to
what students should know and be able to do
for each grade band, (c) they indicate the top-
ics to be included in each grade band, (d) they
offer some guidance as to how much priority
or time should be devoted to a given topic, and
(e) they provide valuable input into the devel-
opment of student assessments.
Of the three sets of standards, the mathe-
matics standards have been the most useful for
those who develop curricula. Each standard
tends to be of equal importance, although some
standards have higher priority in some grade
bands. When one considers the preK12 bands
together, each standard tends to be of equal
importance. Each standard is broken into
approximately 70 developmentally appropriate
subtopics, so it is very clear what students
should know and be able to do as they reach the
end of a grade band.
Science standards are less user-friendly
because they are written in more general terms.
In some cases this makes the determination of
whether a learner has achieved a standard left
to subjective judgment. When a standard has 7
multiple components, the student may have
The Journal of Technology Studies
achieved one aspect of the standard very well
but another aspect less well. Then it is left to
the curriculum developer or teacher to decide
if more time needs to be spent on the achieve-
ment of the standard. Experience with aligning
an integrated mathematics, science, and tech-
nology curriculum for at least 20 state frame-
works reveals that national standards have
influenced their state frameworks. However, in
some states the national standards in both
mathematics and science are broken down one
more level to give more specificity and, thus,
clarity as to what content children are expected
to master by a given grade level.
The technology standards have definitely
expanded the cognitive content to be mastered
within the discipline. We have found that most
of this added content can be integrated into the
application of the three process standards. One
problem with the technology standards is that
they are inconsistent as to their scope. In other
words, some are rather specific and can be
mastered in a short amount of time and others
are so comprehensive that it could take many
class periods to accomplish. Also, the conceptu-
al development of each of the standards from
K12 is in need of improvement. The author has
used the standards for technological literacy
(ITEA, 2000) on a daily basis since they were
released, and he is most appreciative of the
direction they provide. However, he would
advocate taking a page from the mathematics
educators who began to make plans for the
revision of their standards three years after they
were first released.
Summary
Since the mathematics standards published in
1989 had such a positive impact on the
teaching and learning of mathematics, most
academic disciplines have developed their own set
of standards. In this era of accountability in
preK12 education, content standards play a cen-
tral role. They define what students should know
and be able to do. More and more they are used to
develop standardized tests for specific grade lev-
els. This is causing instruction and assessment to
be squarely focused on standards, especially in the
required subject areas. Although technology
 education is only required in 14 states (Newberry,
8 2001), the discipline is fortunate to have content
standards and the resources to develop profession-
The Journal of Technology Studies
al development, assessment, and program stan-
dards. Together these standards have the potential
to make a positive impact on the technological lit-
eracy of future generations (Bybee, 2002).
Table 7. Changing Emphases in Science Education
FEDERAL SYSTEM
Less Emphasis On
Financial support for developing new curriculum materials not
aligned with the Standards
Support by federal agencies for professional development activities
that affect only a few teachers
Agencies working independently on various components of science
education
Support for activities and programs that are unrelated to Standards-
based reform
Federal efforts that are independent of state and local levels
Short-term projects
STATE SYSTEM
Less Emphasis On
Independent initiatives to reform components of
science education
Funds to improve curriculum and instruction based on the
Standards
Frameworks, textbooks, and materials based on activities only mar-
ginally related to the Standards
Assessments aligned with the traditional content of
science education
Current approaches to teacher education
Teacher certification based on formal, historically-based requirements
DISTRICT SYSTEM
Less Emphasis On
Technical, short-term, in-service workshops
Policies related to Standards-based reform
Purchase of textbooks based on traditional topics
Standardized tests and assessments unrelated to Standards-based
program and practices
Administration determining what will be involved in
improving science education
Authority at upper levels of educational system
School board ignorance of science education program
Local union contracts that ignore changes in curriculum, instruc-
tion, and assessment
Knowing scientific facts and information
Studying subject matter disciplines (physical, life, earth
science) for their own sake
Separating science knowledge and science process
Covering many science topics
Implementing inquiry as a set of processes
CHANGING EMPHASES TO
PROMOTE INQUIRY
Less Emphasis On
Activities that demonstrate and verify science content
Investigations confined to one class period
Process skills out of context
Emphasis on individual process skills such as observation or inference
Getting an answer
Science as exploration and experiment
Providing answers to questions about science content
Individuals and groups of students analyzing and synthesizing data
without defending a conclusion
Doing few investigations in order to leave time to cover large
amounts of content
Concluding inquiries with the result of the experiment
Management of materials and equipment
Private communication of student ideas and conclusions to teacher
Dr. Franzie L. Loepp recently retired from the
Department of Technology at Illinois State University
where he served as the Director of the Integrated
Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IMAST)
Project from 1992-2003. He is a member of the
Gamma Theta Chapter of Epsilon Pi Tau and Loepp
received his Distinguished Service Citation in 2000.
More Emphasis On
Financial support for developing new curriculum materials aligned
with the Standards
Support for professional development activities that are aligned
with the Standards and promote system-wide changes
Coordination among agencies responsible for science education
Support for activities and programs that successfully implement the
Standards at state and district levels
Coordination of reform efforts at federal, state, and local levels
Long-term commitment of resources to improving science education
More Emphasis On
Partnerships and coordination of reform efforts
Funds for workshops and programs having little connection to the
Standards
Frameworks, textbooks, and materials adoption criteria aligned with
national and state standards
Assessments aligned with the Standards and the expanded view of
science content
University/college reform of teacher education to include science-
specific pedagogy aligned with the Standards
Teacher certification that is based on understanding and
abilities in science and science teaching
More Emphasis On
Ongoing professional development to support teachers
Policies designed to support change called for in the Standards
Purchase or adoption of curriculum aligned with the Standards and
on a conceptual approach to science teaching, including support for
hands-on science materials
Assessments aligned with the Standards
Teacher leadership in improvement of science education
Authority for decisions at level of implementation
School board support of improvements aligned with the Standards
Local union contracts that support improvements indicated by the
Standards
Understanding scientific concepts and developing abilities of
inquiry
Learning subject matter disciplines in the context of inquiry, tech-
nology, science in personal and social perspectives, and history and
nature of science
Integrating all aspects of science content
Studying a few fundamental science concepts
Implementing inquiry as instructional strategies, abilities, and ideas
to be learned
More Emphasis On
Activities that investigate and analyze science questions
Investigations over extended periods of time
Process skills in context
Using multiple process skills-manipulation, cognitive, procedural
Using evidence and strategies for developing or revising an explanation
Science as argument and explanation
Communication science explanations
Groups of students often analyzing and synthesizing data after
defending conclusions
Doing more investigations in order to develop understanding, abili-
ty, values of inquiry and knowledge of science content
Applying the results of experiments to scientific arguments and
explanations
Management of ideas and information
Public communication of student ideas and work to classmates
Source: National Science Education Standards, 1996, p. 113.
Table 8. Summary of Changes in Content and Emphases in 9-12 Mathematics
Topics To Receive Increased Attention Topics to Receive Decreased Attention 9
Algebra Algebra

The Journal of Technology Studies

The use of real-world problems to motivate and apply theory
The use of computer utilities to develop conceptual understanding
Computer-based methods such as successive approximations
and graphing utilities for solving equations and inequalities
The structure of number systems
Matrices and their applications
Geometry
Integration across topics at all grade levels
Coordinate and transformation approaches
The development of short sequences of theorems
Deductive arguments expressed orally and in sentence
or paragraph form
Computer-based explorations of 2-D and 3-D figures
Three-dimensional geometry
Real-world applications and modeling
Trigonometry
The use of appropriate scientific calculators
Realistic applications and modeling
Connections among the right triangle rations, trigonometric
functions, and circular functions
The use of graphing utilities for solving equations and inequalities
Functions
Integration across topics at all grade levels
The connections among a problem situation, its model as a
function in symbolic form, and the graph of that function
Function equations expressed in standardized form as checks on
the reasonableness of graphs produced by graphing utilities
Functions that are constructed as models of real-world problems
Statistics
Probability
Discrete Mathematics
Word problems by type, such as coin, digit, and work
The simplification of radical expressions
The use of factoring to solve equations and to simplify rational
expressions
Operations with rational expressions
Paper-and-pencil graphing of equations by point plotting
Logarithm calculations using tables and interpolation
The solution of systems of equations using determinants
Conic sections
Geometry
Euclidean geometry as a complete axiomatic system
Proofs of incidence and between ness theorems
Geometry from a synthetic viewpoint
Two-column proofs
Inscribed and circumscribed polygons
Theorems for circles involving segment ratios
Analytic geometry as a separate course
Trigonometry
The verification of complex identities
Numerical applications of sum, difference, double-angle, and
half-angle identities
Calculations using tables and interpolation
Paper-and-pencil solutions of trigonometric equations
Functions
Paper-and-pencil evaluation
The graphing of functions by hand using tables of values
Formulas given as models of real-world problems
The expression of function equations in standardized form in
order to graph them
Treatment as a separate course
Add to program
Add to program
Add to program Source: NCTM, 1989, pp. 126-127.

References
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science
literacy. Washington, DC: Author.
Bybee, R. (2002). Technology education standards: Power, peril, and promise. In J. M. Ritz, W. E.
Dugger, Jr., & E. N. Israel (Eds.), Standards for technological literacy: The role of teacher
education (pp. 1-10). New York: Glencoe McGraw-Hill.
Custer, R. (2001). Assessment standards for technological literacy. The Technology Teacher,
61(2), 25-28.
Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology.
The Technology Teacher, 59(5), 8-13
Dugger, W. E., Jr. (2001). Phase III Technology for All Americans Project: Creating assessment,
professional development, and program standards for technological literacy. The Technology
Teacher, 60(4), 27-31.
Gorham, D. (2002). Engineering and standards for technological literacy. The Technology Teacher,
61(7), 29-34.
International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy:
Content for the study of technology. Reston VA: Author.
International Technology Education Association. (2002). Innovation-Invention-Inquiry Project begins.
The Technology Teacher, 61(7), 5.
Martin, G. (2002). Program standards for technological literacy. The Technology Teacher, 61(5) 27-29.
Mino, M., Kane, G., & Novak, D. (2001). Implementing the standards: A state solution to a national
imperative. The Technology Teacher, 60(7), 30-32.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for
school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school
mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
 Newberry P. (2001). Technology education in the U.S.: A status report. The Technology Teacher,
61(1), 8-12.
10
Technology for All Americans Project. (1996). Technology for all Americans: A rationale and
The Journal of Technology Studies

structure for the study of technology. Reston, VA: International Technology Education Association.
Wulf, W. (2000). The standards for technological literacy: A national academies perspective.
The Technology Teacher, 59(6), 10-12.